True, but it has the same type of electrifying dialogue and "piecing together of a mystery" as some of the coutroom dramas mentioned here. Movies that can stay afloat on great dialogue and strong acting are a dying breed. Most of them end up being considered "art" films and therefore get a limited theatrical release and have unimpressive box office numbers. But I'd rather sit through 12 ANGRY MEN ten times in a row than sit through the next big budget blockbuster ten times in a row. I find something new every time I watch 12 ANGRY MEN and other movies that celebrate good dialogue.

I have sat thru 12 ANGRY MEN "10 times" (prob'ly more) but I almost never see the big budget blockbuster...

I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said. Love the film. It is extremely rare that rate a film 5/5, and 12 Angry Men is one of those rarities. Not only do I give it a 5/5, but enthusiastically.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

A wonderful film, but--apparently--when it was first released to theaters in 1957, it was considered a financial failure, even though the entire budget for the film was only $350,000. It probably should have been released on the art house circuit, where it could have built up an audience. Instead it immediately went into general release and--apparently--general audiences didn't know what to make of it, for they stayed away in droves.

This is actually the second film version of the story. The first being an episode of "Studio One," which was shown in 1954. Then some 40 years after the theatrical release of the film , it was remade again for television with Jack Lemmon in the role played by Henry Fonda in the film. I must say I haven't seen neither one, but I have heard that neither one live up to the theatrical film version.

One last piece of trivia. Of the twelve actors who portrayed the jurors in this film, the only one still living is Jack Klugman.

A wonderful film, but--apparently--when it was first released to theaters in 1957, it was considered a financial failure, even though the entire budget for the film was only $350,000. It probably should have been released on the art house circuit, where it could have built up an audience. Instead it immediately went into general release and--apparently--general audiences didn't know what to make of it, for they stayed away in droves.

I think this is an excellent and important point. People in the old days wanted sh!t as much as they do today. People have not become less discerning, they just have more sh!t to choose from.